61–70 of 555 posts
How much was stolen? How many bitcoins are we talking about. It isn't very clear.
Update: The amount of BTC that was stolen was calculated by Nicholas Weaver @NCWeaver – Computer Security Researcher, to be around: 4474.266369160003BTC that are with the value of about $2.7 Million.
Given illegal nature of Silk Road 2, I can't help but be suspicious of this explanation of the hack. If someone's sufficiently willing to flaunt laws as to operate a site devoted to selling contraband, what stops them from taking advantage of their position of power and stealing from their users?
How much was stolen? How many bitcoins are we talking about. It isn't very clear.
I just looked at a few of them and most addresses received from 20 to 100 BTC so it's quite a lot in total, maybe in the ballpark of 1000-2000 coins.
The claim that this was caused by transaction malleability rings hollow. The reference client (github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin) does not resend transactions because of malleability. The only way you can have double transfers due to malleability is if you are manually reviewing transfers and re-sending them yourself manually. This seems like a very convenient scapegoat.
I thought the 'malleability' problem only resulted in miners being DDOS'd. The transactions themselves were supposedly still 'intact' - i.e., inputs, outputs, addresses were not modified. So.... what are SR2 saying happened here? - Is it a double spend using SR2 escrow bitcoins? - How was the malleability introduced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a huge moral difference between the sort of victimless-crime-contraband that is on SR (especially since SR1 at least, not sure about SR2, actively filtered out child porn, weapons, assassinations and all of the other truly scary things that you can potentially sell on an anonymous market), and stealing millions of dollars from people at least a few of whom are dependent on substances and desperately need the…
Notice that morality doesn't have to have anything to do with this argument. As a matter of pragmatism, the operator of a Silk Road-type site is almost certain to harbor a conviction that he can do so without getting caught (regardless of whether the authorities have morality on their side). The same same goes for stealing from your customers: of course you won't get caught, what are your victims going to do? File a…
Like, when you facilitate selling drugs, there is no victim. Hell, you probably prevented having a victim. When you facilitate selling weapons/assassinations/child porn, there is a victim. The latter type of person would be more likely to victimize his/her customers than the former.
Not having very much knowledge about the financial industry - is this also an issue with marketplaces that deal with fiat monies? i.e. Dwolla, Balanced, Stripe, Venmo, all serve as intermediaries for moving money - do these companies have bank accounts that hold onto massive sums of money? What protections would go into keep those accounts secure?
Modern banking is over 100 years old. There is 100+ years of fraud protection processes, legal experience, etc built into the system, plus a huge and complex industry that has a vested interest in overall currency stability. Bitcoin and other digital currencies are learning firsthand what it means to "disrupt" on this scale. Part of that is learning the hard way what the old industry has known since before any of us…
Bitcoin has the problem of having irreversible transactions, and it's also a lot more difficult to determine whether or not an account has been legitimately stolen from.
I don't think it's the case that the current banking industry is insulated from theft due to superior security. From what I've heard from programmers working in the financial industry, the software there can be quite ropey, or at least no better than anywhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4,474 BTC ~= $2.7 million
Source? I've seen 150 and 88,000 but not 4474
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4,474 BTC ~= $2.7 million
Source? I've seen 150 and 88,000 but not 4474
Given illegal nature of Silk Road 2, I can't help but be suspicious of this explanation of the hack. If someone's sufficiently willing to flaunt laws as to operate a site devoted to selling contraband, what stops them from taking advantage of their position of power and stealing from their users?
It's entirely possible to be in support of a free and peaceful drug trade, while at the same time being morally against theft. I don't know why you're lumping the two.